The problem with the current government’s threatened “just say no” strategy is that it requires a level of support from rUK that just doesn’t seem to exist.
What an imaginative government serious about defending the Union would be doing (at least in the background pending the May election) is thinking hard about a new constitutional settlement, and about the mechanisms for getting such a settlement agreed and giving it legitimacy.
Don’t hold your breath.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In his book “The Passage to Europe”, Luuk van Middelaar called the equivalent EU strategy to demonstrate its relevance to voters the “Roman” strategy politico.eu/article/boris-…
See also “Life of Brian”: “What have the Romans done for us?”
The strategy does not always work. The Jews rose against the Romans and almost threw them out. Wales and Cornwall voted to leave the EU despite the 🇪🇺-flagged projects.
I suspect that, despite @GoodwinMJ’s excitement, the boring truth is that “I’d be likely to vote for a party that wants to tell the truth about British history, good points, bad points, and all” would sweep all before it.
As he says about how we have ended up in the position where it looks as if there will be a pro-independence majority in the next Scottish Parliament. Though also worth raising the U.K. Internal Market Act.
For those at the back who think that constitutional reform is a luxury a Labour government shouldn’t bother with - note that the root problem is a constitutional problem. For the reasons set out in the paragraphs above.
I don’t think that it’s a question of the “left” having forgotten basic principles. But there is an important point buried in @giles_fraser’s piece about the way in which those who support constitutional checks on executive power/human rights protection frame their discourse.
At a technical level, Magna Carta is mostly no longer law (though the bit Giles quoted still is) and even those bits of it that are law have uncertain legal effect.
It is also far from what anyone would now regard as an adequate statement of limits on executive power: nothing on speech, family life, assembly, freedom of religion (protecting the rights of the C of E excepted)... But lots on arcane property rights (fish weirs...)
Lots of good questions here as to what joining the CPTPP would actually mean for the UK. Talking about “new opportunities” and “forging a leadership position” in world trade is all very well: but we need to be hard-headed on both risks and opportunities.
It is important that the current government is clear in its own mind and frank with Parliament about both opportunities and risks: and that its detailed negotiating mandate is put up for consultation, debate, and Parliamentary approval.